CHANDAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these 32 appeals filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act for short) the award is same. The land which is subject-matter of the acquisition proceedings is situated in Village Tughlakabad. Notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 23 January 1965 and declaration under section 6 on 30 October 1969. The award was given on 4 November 1981. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the compensation payable at the rate of Rs. 4,000.00 per bigha . In respect of the land subject-matter of one appeal (RFA 468/89) the compensation was assessed at Rs. 1,000.00 per bigha. In this case it was submitted that there were 10 to 8 deep pits in the land and also it could not be put to agriculture use.

(2.) On a reference made under section 18 of the Act the learned Additional District Judge enhanced the compensation payable and assessed the market value at Rs. 23,000/ per bigha. In the case of land in RFA 468/89 the market value was assessed at Rs. 4,000.00 per bigha.

(3.) Of the 32 appeals. 28 have been filed by Union of India against different judgments of the Court below enhancing .the amount of compensation as aforesaid. The respondents filed their cross-objections seeking enhancement of the compensation. Then during the pendency of these appeals the respondents filed applications under Order 6 Rule 17 and section 151 of the Code Civil Procedure seeking to amend the grounds of appeal and claiming yet further enhanced amount of compensation after making the deficiency in court fee payable on that account. These applications have been kept pending and were ordered to be heard along with appeals. There are, however, no such applications in RFAs. 212/81, 187/88, 199/88. 347/88, 462/87, 2/ 88 and 249/88. The respondents, it appered. did not feel it necessary to file any such applications for enhancement of compensation in RFAs 344/90 and 166/92 inasmuch as they had already claimed compensation at a much higher rate. The applications for enhancement of comensation were filed after judgment of this Court in RFA 299/84 (Virender Singh Vs. Union of India, decided on 23 April 1991) In that case land also pertam to Village Tughlakabad but a notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 5 July 1993 and a declaration under section 6 on 12 August 1975. This Court assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs-68,000- per bigha. On the basis of this judgment it was submitted before us that the market value of the land subject matter of all these appeals would work out to be at the rate of Rs. 42,000.00 per bigha though compensation after amendment was claimed at Rs. 60,000.00 per bigha. In RFA 299/84 the Court observed that it was not disputed that the land in that village was in Kalkaji area, a developed residential colony. Reference was made to a circular dated 28 March 1966 issued by the Central Government in the Ministry of Works, Housing and Development fixing the market value of the plots for tresidential use in Kalkaji Colony at the rate of Rs. 60.00 per square yard. The court further observed that this circular was quite relevant and would form reasonable and fair basis to determine the market value of the land for the year 1973. The court, thererfoere, accepted the contention of the appellant in that appeal that the market value of the land had since enhanced from 1966 when the circular was issued and accepted the calim of the appelant and fixed the market value at the rate of Rs. 68.00 per square yard. We do not think we have to follow the judgment of this Court in RFA 299/84 for fixing the market value of the land in the appeals before us. There are two principal reasons for this. (1) Notification under section 4 of the Act in RFA 299/84 was issued on 5 July 1973 while in the present case it was on 23 January 1965, and (2) the judgments of the Supreme Court, wherein it had said that l/3rd of the market value should be deducted for development of the acqquired land, were not brought to the notice of the Bench. However, we feel bound by the observations made by the Bench that the market value of the land as fixed by the Central Government in 1966 as per circular dated 28 March 1966 would form a reasonable and fair basis to determine the market value of the land subject- matter of the present appeals.